Nigel Cardozo

Realism in Stock KSP

How many of you want realism in Stock KSP  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Realism in Stock KSP

    • Real planets and moons
      11
    • Real rocket engines
      9
    • Real physics
      23
    • Or stock KSP
      25
    • Others (mention them)
      3


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

Don't teach the player?

Don't teach the player. Instead, make the player interested in learning.

 

To address the general point of this thread:

No, stock KSP should not be made substantially more realistic. The game is already very realistic from the point of view of a new player. Us seasoned veterans might be able to list every minor point where the game diverges from reality, but a new player is unlikely to notice any of them other than maybe the size of the solar system. The game is hard to approach as it is. Do not make it harder.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to view Kerbal Space Program as science fiction. Science fiction can be graded in hardness scales. The higher it gets in the hardness scales, the more realistic and internally consistent it gets. Link for those interested: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

You can try to explain the scales of KSP by fooling around with the gravitational constant. Other things like re-entry heating are a bit more difficult to explain with realistic physics. All in all, in every science fiction work except the hardest ones you have to have some kind of suspension of disbelief to truly enjoy it. I am a world builder myself and in my experience the best world building is done by sticking with known physics, and when you deviate from it, you try to deviate from it in the least complex way (like changing a single fact of physics) and rigorously thinking through all the consequences. When you do that your work becomes believable, internally consistent and suspension of disbelief becomes easier.

As a world builder I see KSP as a fairly consistent and believable piece of art. It cuts a few corners here and there, but it does it all in the spirit of playability instead of laziness.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on steam you can change versions of the game using the Properties settings maybe you can have both of them on the steam properties so you can choose if you want Realism or just the Normal KSP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 5:03 PM, pandaman said:

As a DLC option yes, I would very much like to see our actual solar system, ideally with options for full and reduced scales.  But not instead of 'stock'.

This is my favorite idea for a DLC yet. a set of standard tools that let you rescale the game like the combo of @Sigma88's Dimensions & Kronometer and @Galileo's ReScale used to do. I'd gladly pay $15 for that.

My most memorable playthroughs have been 2.5x and I was really sad when support was dropped for new KSP versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kroslev Kerman said:

on steam you can change versions of the game using the Properties settings maybe you can have both of them on the steam properties so you can choose if you want Realism or just the Normal KSP

That seems pretty cumbersome compared to just having it in game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tyko said:

used to do

I am confused, it should still work as of 1.5.1, didn't have time to update to 1.6.0 yet but it's not like the mod is abandoned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Sigma88 said:

I am confused, it should still work as of 1.5.1, didn't have time to update to 1.6.0 yet but it's not like the mod is abandoned

hmm..not sure. I quit using 2.5x when I encountered and reported this visual bug that caused the surface of many GPP stellar bodies to appear translucent from orbit. This may be a GPP/ ReScale thing but since I'm just not sure which of the three mods is responsible, I'd reported it to both you and @Galileo and I kept an eye on the Github tracker and AFAIK it hasn't been fixed.  while not "unplayable", it certainly screwed up the view from orbit which is a pretty big deal in this game. I'd answered a bunch of questions and tried a bunch of suggested fixes a few months ago, but when those didn't work the bug just sat there, so I thought it was dead.

I'd love this to be fixed and happy to assist further if you two want to tackle it. 2.5x GPP is definitely my fav setup

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tyko said:

hmm..not sure. I quit using 2.5x when I encountered and reported this visual bug that caused the surface of many GPP stellar bodies to appear translucent from orbit. This may be a GPP/ ReScale thing but since I'm just not sure which of the three mods is responsible, I'd reported it to both you and @Galileo and I kept an eye on the Github tracker and AFAIK it hasn't been fixed.  while not "unplayable", it certainly screwed up the view from orbit which is a pretty big deal in this game. I'd answered a bunch of questions and tried a bunch of suggested fixes a few months ago, but when those didn't work the bug just sat there, so I thought it was dead.

I'd love this to be fixed and happy to assist further if you two want to tackle it. 2.5x GPP is definitely my fav setup

I forgot about that, I'll get back to that and see if I can fix it this time

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 10:37 AM, IncongruousGoat said:

Don't teach the player. Instead, make the player interested in learning.

Imagine if schools worked this way.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, klgraham1013 said:

Imagine if schools worked this way.  

Good schools work this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Puddle Jumper said:

Good schools work this way.

"Hey.  I figured out that problem with that air conditioner." - my supervisor.

"That's Great!  What you'd do?" - me.

"Interested?  It took me some time to work it out." - my supervisor.

"Well.  Yeah." - me wanting to do my job.

"Cool.  Now go Google it and maybe you'll figure it out too.  I'll expect to see results tomorrow." - my incompetent supervisor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

"Hey.  I figured out that problem with that air conditioner." - my supervisor.

"That's Great!  What you'd do?" - me.

"Interested?  It took me some time to work it out." - my supervisor.

"Well.  Yeah." - me wanting to do my job.

"Cool.  Now go Google it and maybe you'll figure it out too.  I'll expect to see results tomorrow." - my incompetent supervisor.

Every school who calls its teachers supervisors should not be allowed to call itself a school. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were waving a magic wand at KSP and tailoring it to my personal preferences, then yeah, it would become somewhat more realistic. But if I had to choose between ultra-realistic and where it is now, I would choose where it is now. I gave up playing Orbiter for a reason. And as for mass-market appeal, this:

On 1/2/2019 at 9:37 AM, IncongruousGoat said:

No, stock KSP should not be made substantially more realistic. The game is already very realistic from the point of view of a new player. Us seasoned veterans might be able to list every minor point where the game diverges from reality, but a new player is unlikely to notice any of them other than maybe the size of the solar system. The game is hard to approach as it is. Do not make it harder.

 

33 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

"Hey.  I figured out that problem with that air conditioner." - my supervisor.

"That's Great!  What you'd do?" - me.

"Interested?  It took me some time to work it out." - my supervisor.

"Well.  Yeah." - me wanting to do my job.

"Cool.  Now go Google it and maybe you'll figure it out too.  I'll expect to see results tomorrow." - my incompetent supervisor.

So, you've met my boss?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know I went to architecture school. Its basically 5-6 years of emotional abuse and sleep deprivation and if you don’t quit they figure you’re committed at least. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/1/2019 at 6:12 PM, klgraham1013 said:

Just teach the player and those early frustrations go away

There's nothing to "just teach the player" - that's the purpose of actually playing the game.

When I started, I was a excrements-hot space-dude what knew all about orbiting and rendezvous and orbital mechanics because I'd been a complete space nut for 40 years and I've read ALL the space books!

Well, it turned out my vast depth of knowledge was not quite so, and I needed MechJeb to show me how it was done. What happened was a hilarious half-hour of me going "what the hell is it doing?!?!" followed by "ohhhh!" about 15 times, as it matched orbit planes, moved into an orbit where a rendezvous wouldn't take a year, then did the Hohman transfer, followed by the velocity match, and ultimately the burns to rendezvous and station-keep.

You could have probably heard the pieces click together in my brain from a mile away.

I honestly can't think of any other way to teach me.

I already thought I knew it all, so if KSPedia had existed (I started in 0.20.2) I would have simply ignored it, and even if I'd had it, I had already read similar materials for literally decades and still not actually learned the basics.

KSP is realistic enough to teach me, but "kerbal" enough to not be boring, and to allow quick experimentation, and easy realization of what you did wrong.

Even today, I'm still going "what is an optimal gravity turn, and how do I tell?" and I'm still in the experimental stages of interplanetary flight to the point I won't risk it in my career save.

23 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Imagine if schools worked this way.  

I'd give a kneecap for schools that worked that way. Other than a couple gifted teachers in early college, I haven't seen anything other than textbooks with vague and/or incorrect information, teachers who'd rather be researching than teaching, and a complete dependence on rote memorization. Edit: they even made computer science seem totally boring.

Edited by GeneCash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 6:42 PM, Tyko said:

This is my favorite idea for a DLC yet.

Problem is.... mods.    A DLC of this nature wouldn't sell well because most players wouldn't feel the need to buy it if the mechanic introduced was easily doable in a mod.   They need to have the projected sales in place before they can even start working on a DLC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GeneCash said:

There's nothing to "just teach the player" - that's the purpose of actually playing the game.

I fondly recall the days when I'd buy a game, open the box, and read the manual about how to play a game before I got around to installing it.

Reading about it was nothing compared to hands-on experience, of course.  But when I didn't grasp what I was seeing, having a reference to look back on was a great help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

Don't teach the player?

It's not as if there isn't a rich, vibrant, talented, prolific, knowledgeable community already out there making e.g. video tutorials (a certain Scots brogue comes to mind)...

...this very friendly, helpful forum for online advice...

etc etc

 

Edited by Hotel26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Problem is.... mods.    A DLC of this nature wouldn't sell well because most players wouldn't feel the need to buy it if the mechanic introduced was easily doable in a mod.   They need to have the projected sales in place before they can even start working on a DLC. 

except this is something that could be better accomplished if it were baked into the game. Currently it takes 4 different mods plus a bunch of additional dependencies to scale the system and even then any other mod that tracks time has to be specially written to talk to another mod, otherwise the different mods' clocks aren't in sync.

I'm not sure if there's enough demand to support it, I'll leave that to Squad to determine that. It's definitely one of those cases where standardization in stock would be very helpful and is not easily done by the modding community.

It's also a straightforward way to scale difficulty if they wanted to create an advanced mode for experienced players.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, razark said:

I fondly recall the days when I'd buy a game, open the box, and read the manual about how to play a game before I got around to installing it.

Yeah, me too actually, and I do really miss seeing a KSP box on my shelf. Take Two has SERIOUSLY dropped the ball on merch. I treasure my Shapeways figurines, and my KSP t-shirts are long turned to dust.

Anyway, I guess I'm making a distinction between "learning the game" (what are the controls, how do I put a ship together, how do I create a maneuver node, what does the navball mean) and "learning to play KSP" (which engine do I choose, how do I reach orbit, how do I rendezvous, what is a transfer window)

Actually, I have to admit I've slacked off on KSP because its become a little too hard. Not hard as in "I can't do it" but hard as in it's not quite so fun. For example, I keep experience & comm-net turned off now because I got tired of not being able to fix a wheel or getting a probe cut off w/o control. And it wasn't too long ago that I instantly cheated for all tech-tree and all facilities upgrades as a matter of course when starting a new game.

So yeah, I'm adverse to "needs to be moar real"

Edited by GeneCash
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Also, sorry about rolling out an old chestnut, but I think the game has gotten to the point where coding effort should concentrate a bit on fixing the damn bugs.

I'm talking about things like needing World Stabilizer for probelets on low-gravity moons, so they don't leap off the ground to their deaths. That's been fixed, and then the fix was broken. And it's a simple known fix, too.

Landing legs need to be fixed so a Probodobodyne HECS don't continuously wobble and bounce on LT-05s forever, even with springs & damping ramped up to full. Same with the lander on LT-2s from the Kerbal X on the Mun. I know Unity makes suspension difficult, though, and they did increase the full setting from 2 to 3 in the last release.

Edited by GeneCash
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tyko said:

except this is something that could be better accomplished if it were baked into the game.

And given the fun I have whenever I try to install RO, I guess quite a few people would be happy to pay for an integrated solution.

Though I guess that RealScale alone isn't enough for a DLC, even though it already requires a lot of work besides: recalculating all engines and tanks, for starters, and probably a whole new tech tree as well. Reentry heat, oh my (though that may turn out to be comparatively easy).

The obvious way of adding value that comes to mind is eye candy stuff, because Earth without clouds just looks wrong. I honestly expect some flak if there was a RSS DLC without clouds. Besides, I guess stock clouds would be a selling point in and of themselves.

Something else I can think of would be a poor man's RealFuels with a small set of fuel types (Hydrolox, Kerolox, and "Storable") and their respective boil-off issues. Though I'm afraid that this wouldn't help with sales.

4 hours ago, Tyko said:

It's also a straightforward way to scale difficulty if they wanted to create an advanced mode for experienced players.

I don't think RealScale is more difficult in and of itself. Launches tend to take longer, so the try/fail/repeat cycle will take more time as well. But apart from that it's still the same game.

Still I'd take it over stock KSP at any time, if only for the sense of awe when your 200km orbit doesn't look all that high next to a real planet. I also expect that it would be a must-have for any serious player (though how many of these are there, anyway)?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Laie said:
9 hours ago, Tyko said:

It's also a straightforward way to scale difficulty if they wanted to create an advanced mode for experienced players.

I don't think RealScale is more difficult in and of itself. Launches tend to take longer, so the try/fail/repeat cycle will take more time as well. But apart from that it's still the same game.

I think I wasn't clear...I'm talking about using stock parts here and only scaling the solar system. It's significantly more difficult to launch a rocket that takes 5000-6000 DV to get to orbit using stock parts. You can no longer easily SSTO like you can at stock scale.

In a 2.5x universe the DV budget for any mission increases 1.6x. That's a LOT more challenging. At 3.2x the multiplier is ~1.8x. 

So, it's not just about taking longer, it's about having to launch a lot more fuel and solving for that is tough.

 

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that sheer delta-V equals difficulty, not in and of itself.

At some point it creates difficulties, granted, because we're only given tanks and engines up to a certain size, and duct-taping hundreds for a "Rescue Burberry" kind of rocket is indeed an engineering challenge. Whenever I'm promoting a real-scale system I'm silently (and often not so silently) assuming that dry masses etc will be adjusted to fit the scale.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now